Not all do. Some indeed claim that science disproves god.
Science certainly narrows down the range of possible gods. Science, for example, disproves a god who created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago. In fact, since science rules out particular divine possibilities, one could say science favors distant, noninterventionist deities.
So you sticker should properly read 'Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of some gods, but it does disprove the existence of others.'
Thanks for stating clearly what I tried (but failed) to state in my post 542 in this thread.
Everyone would agree there are thousands of cases in which man has clearly created a God or gods. Many further maintain there is one instance (and one instance only) in which a God or gods created man--but they don't agree on which one or ones.
I can understand, in a world transformed by science, how a 'God of the Gaps' can arise, and I can further understand how some may feel that God of the Gaps is diminished as each advance of science reduces the 'gap' in which such a diety could dwell. It's not my conception of God, but never mind.
What is harder to understand is how a very much older and simpler concept of God persists (an anthropomorphic grey-bearded old guy, generally), though not hard to see why some fundamentalists, whether Islamic, Christian or whatever, do indeed feel threatened by science. They are.
#####Science certainly narrows down the range of possible gods. Science, for example, disproves a god who created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago. In fact, since science rules out particular divine possibilities, one could say science favors distant, noninterventionist deities.#####
Miracles don't leave traces, so science can't disprove the existence of any God, including one who created the world 6,000 years ago. I'm not a YEC, but either God exists or He doesn't. If He exists, He isn't limited by Dawkins' imagined rules about how God would have to operate.
Details, please?